arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 30 Jul 2003

Transcription

1 Testing General Relativity with Pulsar Timing arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 30 Jul 2003 Ingrid H. Stairs Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University of British Columbia 6224 Agricultural Road Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1 Canada (last modified: June 9, 2003) Abstract Pulsars of very different types isolated objects, and binaries with short- and long-period orbits, white-dwarf and neutron-star companions provide the means to test both the predictions of general relativity and the viability of alternate theories of gravity. This article presents an overview of pulsars, then discusses the current status and future prospects of tests of equivalence principle violations and strong-field gravitational experiments. 1

2 1 Introduction Since their discovery in 1967 [68], radio pulsars have provided insights into physics on length scales covering the range from 1 m (giant pulses from the Crab pulsar [64]) to 10km (neutron star) to kpc (Galactic) to hundreds of Mpc (cosmological). Pulsars present an extreme stellar environment, with matter at nuclear densities, magnetic fields of 10 8 G to nearly G, and spin periods ranging from 1.5ms to 8.5s. The regular pulses received from a pulsar each correspond to a single rotation of the neutron star. It is by measuring the deviations from perfect observed regularity that information can be derived about the neutron star itself, the interstellar medium between it and the Earth, and effects due to gravitational interaction with binary companion stars. In particular, pulsars have proved to be remarkably successful laboratories for tests of the predictions of general relativity (GR). The tests of GR that are possible through pulsar timing fall into two broad categories: setting limits on the magnitudes of parameters that describe violation of equivalence principles, often using an ensemble of pulsars, and verifying that the measured post- Keplerian timing parameters of a given binary system match the predictions of strong-field GR better than those of other theories. Long-term millisecond pulsar timing can also be used to set limits on the stochastic gravitational-wave background (e.g., [78, 91, 72]), as can limits on orbital variability in binary pulsars for even lower wave frequencies (e.g., [28, 83]). However these are not tests of the same type of precise prediction of GR and will not be discussed here. This review will present a brief overview of the properties of pulsars and the mechanics of deriving timing models, and will then proceed to describe the various types of tests of GR made possible by both single and binary pulsars. 2

3 2 Pulsars, Observations and Timing The properties and demographics of pulsars, as well as pulsar search and timing techniques, are thoroughly covered in the article by Lorimer in this series [92]. This section will present only an overview of the topics most important to understanding the application of pulsar observations to tests of GR. 3

4 2.1 Pulsar Properties Radio pulsars were firmly established as being neutron stars with the discovery of the pulsar in the Crab nebula [121]; its 33-ms period was too fast to permit a pulsating or rotating white dwarf, leaving a rotating neutron star as the only surviving model[110, 61]. The 1982 discovery of a 1.5-ms pulsar, PSR B [20], led to the realization that, in addition to the young Crab-like pulsars born in recent supernovae, there exists a separate class of older millisecond or recycled pulsars, which have been spun up to faster periods by accretion of matter and angular momentum from an evolving companion star. See, for example, [29] and [111] for reviews of the evolution of such binary systems. It is precisely these recycled pulsars that form the most valuable resource for tests of GR. Figure 1: Top: 100 single pulses from the 253-ms pulsar B , demonstrating pulse-to-pulse variability in shape and intensity. Bottom: Cumulative profile for this pulsar over 5 minutes (about 1200 pulses); this approaches the reproducible standard profile. Observations taken with the Green Bank Telescope [1]. Stairs, unpublished. The exact mechanism by which a pulsar radiates the energy observed as radio pulses is still a subject of vigorous debate. The basic picture of a misaligned magnetic dipole, with coherent radiation from charged particles acceleratedalongtheopenfieldlinesabovethepolarcap[63,129], willserveadequately 4

5 for the purposes of this article, in which pulsars are treated as a tool to probe other physics. While individual pulses fluctuate severely in both intensity and shape(see Fig. 1), a profile integrated over several hundred or thousand pulses (i.e., a few minutes) yields a shape a standard profile that is reproducible for a given pulsar at a given frequency. (There is generally some evolution of pulse profiles with frequency, but this can usually be taken into account.) It is the reproducibility of time-averaged profiles that permits high-precision timing. Of some importance later in this article will be models of the pulse beam shape, the envelope function which forms the standard profile. The collection of pulse profile shapes and polarization properties have been used to formulate phenomenological descriptions of the pulse emission regions. At the simplest level (e.g., reference [113] and other papers in that series), the classifications can be broken down into Gaussian-shaped core regions with little linear polarization and some circular polarization, and double-peaked cone regions with stronger linear polarization and S-shaped position angle swings in accordance with the Rotating Vector Model (RVM; see[112]). While these models prove helpful for evaluating observed changes in the profiles of pulsars undergoing geodetic precession, there are ongoing disputes in the literature as to whether the core/cone split is physically meaningful, or whether both types of emission are simply due to patchy strength of a single emission region (e.g., [95]). 5

6 2.2 Pulsar Observations Figure 2: Pulse profile shapes for PSR J at multiple frequencies, aligned by pulse timing. The full pulse period is displayed at each frequency. The growth of an exponential scattering tail at low frequencies is evident. All observations taken with the Green Bank Telescope [1] (Stairs, unpublished), except for the 660-MHz profile which was acquired at the Parkes telescope [2, 123]. A short description of pulsar observing techniques is in order. As pulsars have quite steep radio spectra (e.g.,[98]), they are strongest at frequencies f 0 of a few hundred MHz. At these frequencies, the propagation of the radio wave through the ionized interstellar medium (ISM) can have quite serious effects on the observed pulse. Multipath scattering will cause the profile to be convolved with an exponential tail, blurring the sharp profile edges needed for the best timing. Figure 2 shows an example of scattering; the effect decreases with sky frequency as roughly f0 4 (e.g., [97]) and thus affects timing precision less at higher observing frequencies. A related effect is scintillation: interference between the rays traveling along the different paths causes time- and frequencydependent peaks and valleys in the pulsar s signal strength. The decorrelation bandwidth, across which the signal is observed to have roughly equal strength, is related to the scattering time and scales as f0 4 (e.g., [97]). There is little any instrument can do to compensate for these effects; wide observing bandwidths at relatively high frequencies and generous observing time allocations are the 6

7 only ways to combat these problems. Figure 3: Pulse profile of the fastest rotating pulsar, PSR B , observed with the 76-m Lovell telescope at Jodrell Bank Observatory [3]. The top panel shows the total-intensity profile derived from a filterbank observation (see text); the true profile shape is convolved with the response of the channel filters. The lower panel shows the full-stokes observation with a coherent dedispersion instrument [125, 124]. Total intensity is indicated by black lines, and linear and circular power by red and blue lines respectively. The position angle of the linear polarization is plotted twice. The coherent dedispersion observation results in a much sharper and more detailed pulse profile, less contaminated by instrumental effects and more closely resembling the pulse emitted by the rotating neutron star. Much better timing precision can be obtained with these sharper pulses. Another important effect induced by the ISM is the dispersion of the traveling pulses. Acting as a tenuous electron plasma, the ISM causes the wavenumber of a propagating wave to become frequency-dependent. By calculating the group velocity of each frequency component, it is easy to show (e.g.,[97]) that lower frequencies will arrive at the telescope later in time than the higher-frequency components, following a 1/f 2 law. The magnitude of the delay is completely characterized by the dispersion measure (DM), the integrated electron content along the line of sight between the pulsar and the Earth. All low-frequency pulsar observing instrumentation is required to address this dispersion problem if the goal is to obtain profiles suitable for timing. One standard approach is to split the observing bandpass into a multichannel filterbank, to detect the signal in each channel, and then to realign the channels following the 1/f 2 law when integrating the pulse. This method is certainly adequate for slow pulsars and often for nearby millisecond pulsars. However, when the ratio of the pulse period to its DM becomes small, much sharper profiles can be obtained by sam- 7

8 pling the voltage signals from the telescope prior to detection, and convolving the resulting time series with the inverse of the easily calculated frequencydependent filter imposed by the ISM. As a result, the pulse profile is perfectly aligned in frequency, without any residual dispersive smearing caused by finite channel bandwidths. As well, full-stokes information can be obtained without significant increase in analysis time, allowing accurate polarization plots to be easily derived. This coherent dedispersion technique [65] is now in widespread use across normal observing bandwidths of several tens of MHz, thanks to the availability of inexpensive fast computing power (e.g., [18, 73, 124]). Some of the highest-precision experiments described below have used this approach to collect their data. Figure 3 illustrates the advantages of this technique. 8

9 2.3 Pulsar Timing Once dispersion has been removed, the resultant time series is typically folded modulo the expected pulse period, in order to build up the signal strength over several minutes and to obtain a stable time-averaged profile. The pulse period may not be very easily predicted from the discovery period, especially if the pulsar happens to be in a binary system. The goal of pulsar timing is to develop a model of the pulse phase as a function of time, so that all future pulse arrival times can be predicted with a good degree of accuracy. The profile accumulated over several minutes is compared by cross-correlation with the standard profile for the pulsar at that observing frequency. A particularly efficient version of the cross-correlation algorithm compares the two profiles in the frequency domain [130]. Once the phase shift of the observed profile relative to the standard profile is known, that offset is added to the start time of the observation in order to yield a Time of Arrival (TOA) that is representative of that few-minute integration. In practice, observers frequently use a time- and phase-stamp near the middle of the integration in order to minimize systematic errors due to a poorly known pulse period. As a rule, pulse timing precision is best for bright pulsars with short spin periods, narrow profiles with steep edges, and little if any profile corruption due to interstellar scattering. With a collection of TOAs in hand, it becomes possible to fit a model of the pulsar s timing behaviour, accounting for every rotation of the neutron star. Based on the magnetic dipole model [110, 61], the pulsar is expected to lose rotational energy and thus spin down. The primary component of the timing model is therefore a Taylor expansion of the pulse phase φ with time t: φ = φ 0 +ν(t t 0 )+ 1 2 ν(t t 0) (1) where φ 0 and t 0 are a reference phase and time, respectively, and the pulse frequency ν is the time derivative of the pulse phase. Note that the fitted parameters ν and ν and the magnetic dipole model can be used to derive an estimate of the surface magnetic field B sinα: B sinα = ( 3I νc 3 8π 2 R 6 ν 3 ) 1/2 ( ) 1/2 ν ν 3 G, (2) where α is the inclination angle between the pulsar spin axis and the magnetic dipole axis, R is the radius of the neutron star, about 10 6 cm, and the moment of inertia is I gcm 2. In turn, integration of the energy loss, along with the assumption that the pulsar was born with infinite spin frequency, yields a characteristic age τ c for the pulsar: τ c = ν 2 ν. (3) 9

10 2.3.1 Basic Transformation Equation 1 refers to pulse frequencies and times in a reference frame that is inertial relative to the pulsar. TOAs derived in the rest frame of a telescope on the Earth must therefore be translated to such a reference frame before Equation 1 can be applied. The best approximation available for an inertial reference frame is that of the Solar System Barycentre (SSB). Even this is not perfect; many of the tests of GR described below require correcting for the small relative accelerations of the SSB and the centre-of-mass frames of binary pulsar systems. But certainly for the majority of pulsars it is adequate. The required transformationbetween a TOA at the telescope, τ, and the emission time t from the pulsar is: t = τ D/f 2 + R + E S R E S. (4) Here D/f 2 accounts for the dispersive delay in seconds of the observed pulse relative to infinite frequency; the parameter D is derived from the pulsar s dispersion measure by D = DM/ Hz, with DM in units of pccm 3 and the observingfrequency f in MHz. The Roemer term, R, takesout the travel time across the Solar System based on the relative positions of the pulsar and the telescope, including, if needed, the proper motion and parallax of the pulsar. The Einstein delay, E, accounts for the time dilation and gravitational redshift due to the Sun and other masses in the Solar System, while the Shapiro delay, S, expresses the excess delay to the pulsar signal as it travels through the gravitational well of the Sun a maximum delay of about 120µs at the limb of the Sun; see [19] for a fuller discussion of these terms. The terms R, E, S in Equation 4 account for similar Roemer, Einstein and Shapiro delays within the pulsar binary system, if needed, and will be discussed in Section below. Most observers accomplish the model fitting, accounting for these delay terms, using the program tempo [4]. The correction of TOAs to the reference frame of the SSB requires an accurate ephemeris for the Solar System. The most commonly used ephemeris is the DE200 standard from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory [128]. It is also clear that accurate time-keeping is of primary importance in pulsar modeling. General practice is to derive the time-stamp on each observation from the Observatory s local time standard typically a Hydrogen maser and to apply, retroactively, corrections to wellmaintained time standards such as UTC(BIPM), Universal Coordinated Time as maintained by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures in Paris. 10

11 2.3.2 Binary Pulsars The terms R, E, S in Equation 4 describe the Roemer, Einstein and Shapiro delays within a pulsar binary system. The majority of binary pulsar orbits are adequately described by five Keplerian parameters: the orbital period P b, the projected semi-major axis x, the eccentricity e, and the longitude ω and epoch T 0 of periastron. The angle ω is measured from the line of nodes, Ω, where the pulsar orbit intersects the plane of the sky. In many cases, one or more relativistic corrections to the Keplerian parameters must also be fit. Early relativistic timing models, developed in the first years after the discovery of PSR B , either did not provide a full description of the orbit (e.g., [30]), or else did not define the timing parameters in a way that allowed deviations from GR to be easily identified (e.g., [57, 66]). The best modern timing model [41, 133, 51]) incorporates a number of post-keplerian timing parameters which are included in the description of the three delay terms, and which can be fit in a completely phenomenological manner. The delays are defined primarily in terms of the phase of the orbit, defined by the eccentric anomaly u and true anomaly A e (u), as well as ω, P b and their possible time derivatives. These are related by: [ (T ) T0 P u esinu = 2π ( ) ] 2 b T T0, (5) 2 A e (u) = 2arctan ω = ω 0 + P b [ (1+e ( Pb ω 2π 1 e P b ) ] 1/2 tan u, (6) 2 ) A e (u), (7) where ω 0 is the reference value of ω at time T 0. The delay terms then become: R = xsinω(cosu e(1+δ r ))+x(1 e 2 (1+δ θ ) 2 ) 1/2 cosωsinu, (8) E = γsinu, (9) { [ ]} S = 2rln 1 ecosu s sinω(cosu e)+(1 e 2 ) 1/2 cosωsinu. (10) Here γ represents the combined time dilation and gravitational redshift due to the pulsar s orbit, and r and s are, respectively, the range and shape of the Shapiro delay. Together with the orbital period derivative P b and the advance of periastron ω, they make up the post-keplerian timing parameters that can be fit for various pulsar binaries. A fuller description of the timing model also includes the aberration parameters δ r and δ θ, but these parameters are not in general separately measurable. The interpretation of the measured post- Keplerian timing parameters will be discussed in the context of double-neutronstar tests of GR in Section 4. 11

12 3 Tests of GR Equivalence Principle Violations Equivalence principles are fundamental to gravitational theory; for full descriptions see e.g., [99] or [150]. Newton formulated what may be considered the earliest such principle, now called the Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP). It states that in an external gravitational field, objects of different compositions and masses will experience the same acceleration. The Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP) includes this concept as well as those of Lorentz invariance (non-existence of preferred reference frames) and positional invariance (nonexistence of preferred locations) for non-gravitational experiments. This principle leads directly to the conclusion that non-gravitational experiments will have the same outcomes in inertial and in freely-falling reference frames. The Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) adds Lorentz and positional invariance for gravitational experiments, thus including experiments on objects with strong self-gravitation. As GR incorporates the SEP, and other theories of gravity may violate all or parts of it, it is useful to define a formalism which allows immediate identifications of such violations. The parametrized post-newtonian (PPN) formalism was developed [151] to provide a uniform description of the weak-gravitational-field limit, and to facilitate comparisons of rival theories in this limit. This formalism requires 10 parameters (γ PPN, β, ξ,α 1, α 2, α 3, ζ 1, ζ 2, ζ 3 and ζ 4 ) which are fully described in the article by Will in this series [147] and whose physical meanings are nicely summarized in Table 2 of that article. (Note that γ PPN is not the same as the Post-Keplerian pulsar timing parameter γ.) Damour and Esposito-Farèse [45, 43] extended this formalism to include strong-field effects for generalized tensor-multiscalar gravitational theories. This allows a better understanding of limits imposed by systems including pulsars and white dwarfs, for which the amounts of self-gravitation are very different. Here, for instance, α 1 becomes ˆα 1 = α 1 + α 1 (c 1 + c 2 ) +..., where c i describes the compactness of mass m i. The compactness can be written c i = 2 lnm i / lng 2(E grav /(mc 2 )) i, where G is Newton s constant and E grav i is the gravitational self-energy of mass m i, about 0.2 for a neutron star (NS) and 10 4 for a white dwarf (WD). Pulsar timing has the ability to set limits on ˆα 1, which tests for the existence of preferred-frame effects (violations of Lorentz invariance); ˆα 3, which, in addition to testing for preferred-frame effects, also implies non-conservation of momentum if non-zero; and ζ 2, which is also a non-conservativeparameter. Pulsarscan also be used to set limits on other SEP-violation effects which constrain combinations of the PPN parameters: the Nordtvedt ( gravitational Stark ) effect, dipolar gravitational radiation, and variation of Newton s constant. The next sections will discuss the current pulsar timing limits on each of these effects. Table 1 summarizes the PPN and testable parameters, giving the best pulsar and solar-system limits. 12

13 Parameter γ PPN β ξ α 1 α 2 Physical Meaning Space curvature produced by unit rest mass Non-linearity in superposition law for gravity Preferredlocation effects Preferredframe effects Preferredframe effects α 3 Preferredframe effects and nonconservation of momentum ζ 1 Nonconservation of momentum ζ 2 Nonconservation of momentum ζ 3 Nonconservation of momentum ζ 4 Nonconservation of momentum η, net Gravitational Stark effect (αc 1 α 0 ) 2 Pulsar coupling to scalar field Ġ/G Variation of Newton s constant Solar-system test VLBI, light deflection; measures γ PPN 1 Perihelion shift of Mercury; measures β 1 Solar alignment with ecliptic Lunar laser ranging Solar alignment with ecliptic Perihelion shift of Earth and Mercury Combined PPN limits Lunar acceleration Not independent Lunar laser ranging Laser ranging to the Moon and Mars Limit Pulsar test Limit Ensemble of binary pulsars Ensemble of binary pulsars Limit on P for PSR B Ensemble of binary pulsars Dipolar gravitational radiation for PSR B yr 1 Changes in Chandrasekhar mass yr 1 Table 1: PPN and other testable parameters, with the best solar-system and binary pulsar tests. Physical meanings and most of the solar-system references are taken from the compilations by Will [147]. References: γ PPN, Solar-system: [59]; β, Solar-system: [119]; ξ, Solar-system: [107]; α 1, Solar-system: [100], pulsar: [146]; α 2, Solar-system: [107, 150]; α 3, Solar-system: [150], pulsar: [146]; ζ 2, pulsar: [149]; ζ 3, Solar-system: [23, 150]; η, net, Solar-system: [53], pulsar: [146]; (α c1 α 0 ) 2, pulsar: [15]; Ġ/G, Solar-system: [53, 116, 67], pulsar: [135]. 13

14 3.1 Strong Equivalence Principle: Nordtvedt Effect The possibility of direct tests of the SEP through Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) experiments was first pointed out by Nordtvedt [106]. As the masses of Earth and the Moon contain different fractional contributions from self-gravitation, a violation of the SEP would cause them to fall differently in the Sun s gravitational field. This would result in a polarization of the orbit in the direction of the Sun. LLR tests have set a limit of η < (e.g., [53, 147]), where η is a combination of PPN parameters: η = 4β γ ξ α α ζ ζ 2. (11) The strong-field formalism instead uses the parameter i [49], which for object i may be written as: ( ) mgrav = 1+ i m inertial i ( ) E grav = 1+η mc 2 i ( ) E +η grav 2 mc (12) i Pulsar white dwarf systems then constrain net = pulsar companion [49]. If the SEP is violated, the equations of motion for such a system will contain an extra acceleration net g, where g is the gravitational field of the Galaxy. As the pulsar and the white dwarf fall differently in this field, this net g term will influence the evolution of the orbit of the system. For low-eccentricity orbits, by far the largest effect will be a long-term forcing of the eccentricity toward alignment with the projection of g onto the orbital plane of the system. Thus the time evolution of the eccentricity vector will not only depend on the usual GR-predicted relativistic advance of periastron ( ω) but will also include a constant term. Damour and Schäfer [49] write the time-dependent eccentricity vector as: e(t) = e F +e R (t), (13) where e R (t) is the ω-induced rotating eccentricity vector, and e F is the forced component. In terms of net, the magnitude of e F may be written as [49, 145]: e F = 3 2 net g ωa(2π/p b ), (14) where g is the projection of the gravitational field onto the orbital plane, and a = x/(sin i) is the semi-major axis of the orbit. For small-eccentricity systems, this reduces to: e F = 1 net g c 2 2FGM(2π/P b ) 2, (15) where M is the total mass of the system, and, in GR, F = 1 and G is Newton s constant. 14

15 Clearly, the primary criterion for selecting pulsars to test the SEP is for the orbital system to have a large value of Pb 2 /e, greater than or equal to 107 days 2 [145]. However, as pointed out by Damour and Schäfer [49] and Wex [145], two age-related restrictions are also needed. First of all, the pulsar must be sufficiently old that the ω-induced rotation of e has completed many turns and e R (t) can be assumed to be randomly oriented. This requires that the characteristic age τ c 2π/ ω and thus young pulsars cannot be used. Secondly, ω itself must be larger than the rate of Galactic rotation, so that the projection of g onto the orbit can be assumed to be constant. According to Wex [145], this holds true for pulsars with orbital periods of less than about 1000 days. e F e R g θ Figure 4: Polarization of a nearly circular binary orbit under the influence of a forcing vector g, showing the relation between the forced eccentricity, e F, the eccentricity evolving under the general-relativistic advance of periastron, e R (t), and the angle θ. After [145]. Convertingequation15toalimiton net requiressomestatisticalarguments to deal with the unknowns in the problem. First is the actual component of the observed eccentricity vector (or upper limit) along a given direction. Damour and Schäfer (1991) [49] assume the worst case of possible cancellation between the two components of e, namely that e F e R. With an angle θ between g and e R (see Figure 4), they write e F e/(2sin(θ/2)). Wex [145, 146] corrects this slightly and uses the inequality: e F eξ 1 (θ), ξ 1 (θ) = 1/sinθ : θ [0,π/2) 1 : θ [π/2,3π/2] 1/sinθ : θ (3π/2,2π), (16) where e = e. In both cases θ is assumed to have a uniform probability distribution between 0 and 2π. Next comes the task of estimating the projection of g onto the orbital plane. The projection can be written as: g = g [1 (cosicosλ+sinisinλsinω) 2 ] 1/2, (17) where i in the inclination angle of the orbital plane relative to the line of sight, Ω is the line of nodes and λ is the angle between the line of sight to the pulsar 15

16 and g [49]. The values of λ and g can be determined from models of the Galactic potential (e.g., [88, 10]). The inclination angle i can be estimated if even crude estimates of the neutron star and companion masses are available, from statistics of NS masses (e.g., [136]) and/or a relation between the size of the orbit and the WD companion mass (e.g.,[115]). However, the angle Ω is also usually unknown and must also be assumed to be uniformly distributed between 0 and 2π. Damour and Schäfer [49] use the PSR B system and integrate over the angles θ and Ω to determine a 90% confidence upper limit of net < Wex [145] uses an ensemble of pulsars, calculating for each system the probability (fractional area in θ Ω space) that net is less than a given value, and then deriving a cumulative probability for each value of net. In this way he derives net < at 95% confidence. However, this method may be vulnerable to selection effects: perhaps the observed systems are not representative of the true population. Wex [146] later overcomes this problem by inverting the question. Given a value of net, an upper limit on θ is obtained from equation 16. A Monte Carlo simulation of the expected pulsar population (assuming a range of masses based on evolutionary models and a random orientation of Ω) then yields a certain fraction of the population that agree with this limit on θ. The collection of pulsars ultimately gives a limit of net < at 95% confidence. This is slightly weaker than Wex s previous limit but derived in a more rigorous manner. Prospects for improving the limits come from the discovery of new suitable pulsars, and from better limits on eccentricity from long-term timing of the current set of pulsars. In principle, measurement of the full orbital orientation (i.e., Ω and i) for certain systems could reduce the dependence on statistical arguments. However, the possibility of cancellation between e F and e R will always remain. Thus, even though the required angles have in fact been measured for the millisecond pulsar J [139], its comparatively large observed eccentricity of means it will not significantly affect the current limits. 16

17 3.2 Preferred-Frame Effects and Non-conservation of Momentum Limits on ˆα 1 A non-zero ˆα 1 implies that the velocity w of a binary pulsar system (relative to a universal background reference frame given by the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB) will affect its orbital evolution. In a manner similar to the effects of a non-zero net, the time evolution of the eccentricity will depend on both ω and a term which tries to force the semi-major axis of the orbit to align with the projection of the system velocity onto the orbital plane. The analysis proceeds in a similar fashion to that for net, except that the magnitude of e F is now written as [46, 26]: e F = 1 12 ˆα m 1 m 2 w 1 m 1 +m 2 1/3, (18) [G(m 1 +m 2 )(2π/P b )] where w is the projection of the system velocity onto the orbital plane. The angle λ, used in determining this projection in a manner similar to that of equation 17, is now the angle between the line of sight to the pulsar and the absolute velocity of the binary system. Thefigureofmeritforsystemsusedtotest ˆα 1 isp 1/3 b /e. Asforthe net test, the systems must be old, so that τ c 2π/ ω, and ω must be larger than the rate of Galactic rotation. Examples of suitable systems are PSR J [35, 26] with a last published value of e < in 1996 [36], and PSR J , with e < [89]. This latter system is especially valuable because observations of its white-dwarf component yield a radial velocity measurement [32], eliminating the need to find a lower limit on an unknown quantity. The analysis of Wex [146] yields a limit of ˆα 1 < This is comparable in magnitude to the weak-field results from lunar laser ranging, but incorporates strong field effects as well. 17

18 3.2.2 Limits on ˆα 3 Tests of ˆα 3 can be derived from both binary and single pulsars, using slightly different techniques. A non-zero ˆα 3, which implies both a violation of local Lorentz invariance and non-conservation of momentum, will cause a rotating body to experience a self-acceleration a self in a direction orthogonal to both its spin Ω S and its absolute velocity w [109]: E grav a self = 1 3ˆα 3 (mc 2 ) w Ω S. (19) Thus the self-acceleration depends strongly on the compactness of the object, as discussed in Section 3 above. An ensemble of single (isolated) pulsars can be used to set a limit on ˆα 3 in the following manner. For any given pulsar, it is likely that some fraction of the self-acceleration will be directed along the line of sight to the Earth. Such an acceleration will contribute to the observed period derivative P via the Doppler effect, by an amount: Pˆα3 = P c ˆn a self, (20) where ˆn is a unit vector in the direction from the pulsar to the Earth. The analysis of Will [150] assumes random orientations of both the pulsar spin axes and velocities, and finds that, on average, Pˆα ˆα 3, independent of the pulse period. The sign of the ˆα 3 contribution to P, however, may be positive or negative for any individual pulsar, thus if there were a large contribution on average, one would expect to observe pulsars with both positive and negative total period derivatives. Young pulsars in the field of the Galaxy (pulsars in globular clusters suffer from unknown accelerations from the cluster gravitational potential and do not count toward this analysis) all show positive period derivatives, typically around s/s. Thus the maximum possible contribution from ˆα 3 must also be considered to be of this size, and the limit is given by ˆα 3 < [150]. Bell [24] applies this test to a set of millisecond pulsars; these have much smaller period derivatives, on the order of s/s. Here it is also necessary to account for the Shklovskii effect [120] in which a similar Doppler-shift addition to the period derivative results from the transverse motion of the pulsar on the sky: P pm = Pµ 2d (21) c where µ is the proper motion of the pulsar and d is the distance between the Earth and the pulsar. The distance is usually poorly determined, with uncertainties of typically 30% resulting from models of the dispersive free electron density in the Galaxy [132, 38]. Nevertheless, once this correction (which is always positive) is applied to the observed period derivatives for isolated millisecond pulsars, a limit on ˆα 3 on the order of results [24, 27]. 18

19 In the case of a binary pulsar white-dwarf system, both bodies experience a self-acceleration. The combined accelerations affect both the velocity of the centre of mass of the system (an effect which may not be readily observable) and the relative motion of the two bodies [27]. The relative-motion effects break down into a term involving the coupling of the spins to the absolute motion of the centre of mass, and a second term which couples the spins to the orbital velocities of the stars. The second term induces only a very small, unobservable correction to P b and ω [27]. The first term, however, can lead to a significant test of ˆα 3. Both the compactness and the spin of the pulsar will completely dominate those of the white dwarf, making the net acceleration of the two bodies effectively: a self = 1 6ˆα 3c p w Ω Sp, (22) where c p and Ω Sp denote the compactness and spin angular frequency of the pulsar, respectively, and w is the velocity of the system. For evolutionary reasons (e.g., [29]), the spin axis of the pulsar may be assumed to be aligned with the orbital angular momentum of the system, hence the net effect of the acceleration will be to induce a polarization of the eccentricity vector within the orbital plane. The forced eccentricity term may be written as: c p w Pb 2 c 2 e F = ˆα 3 sinβ (23) 24π P G(m 1 +m 2 ) where β is the (unknown) angle between w and Ω Sp, and P is, as usual, the spin period of the pulsar: P = 2π/Ω Sp. The figure of merit for systems used to test ˆα 3 is Pb 2 /(ep). The additional requirements of τ c 2π/ ω and ω being larger than the rate of Galactic rotation also hold. The 95% confidence limit derived by Wex [146] for an ensemble of binary pulsars is ˆα 3 < , much more stringent than for the singlepulsar case. 19

20 3.2.3 Limits on ζ 2 Another PPN parameter that predicts the non-conservationof momentum is ζ 2. It will contribute, along with α 3, to an acceleration of the centre of mass of a binary system [149, 150]: πm 1 m 2 (m 1 m 2 ) a CM = (α 3 +ζ 2 ) P b [(m 1 +m 2 )a(1 e 2 )] 3/2en p, (24) where n p is a unit vector from the centre of mass to the periastron of m 1. This acceleration produces the same type of Doppler-effect contribution to a binary pulsar s P as described in Section In a small-eccentricity system, this contribution would not be separable from the P intrinsic to the pulsar. However, in a highly eccentric binary such as PSR B , the longitude of periastron advances significantly for PSR B , it has advanced nearly 120 since the pulsar s discovery. In this case, the projection of a CM along the line of sight to the Earth will change considerably over the long term, producing an effective second derivative of the pulse period. This P is given by [149, 150]: P = P ( ) 2 2π 2 (α X(1 X) e ω cosω 3 +ζ 2 )m 2 sini (1+X) 2 (1 e 2 ) 3/2, (25) P b wherex = m 1 /m 2 isthemassratioofthetwostarsandanaveragevalueofcosω is chosen. As of 1992, the 95% confidence upper limit on P was s 1 [133, 149]. This leads to an upper limit on (α 3 + ζ 2 ) of [149]. As α 3 is orders of magnitude smaller than this (see Section 3.2.2), this can be interpreted as a limit on ζ 2 alone. Although PSR B is of course still observed, the infrequent campaign nature of the observations makes it difficult to set a much better limit on P (J. Taylor, private communication, as cited in [80]). The other well-studied double-neutron-star binary, PSR B , yields a weaker test due to its orbital parameters and very similar component masses. A complication for this test is that an observed P could also be interpreted as timing noise (sometimes seen in recycled pulsars [78]) or else a manifestation of profile changes due to geodetic precession [84, 80]. 20

21 3.3 Strong Equivalence Principle: Dipolar Gravitational Radiation General Relativity predicts gravitational radiation from the time-varying mass quadrupole of a binary pulsar system. The spectacular confirmation of this prediction will be discussed in section 4 below. GR does not, however, predict dipolar gravitational radiation, though many theories that violate the SEP do. In these theories, dipolar gravitational radiation results from the difference in gravitational binding energy of the two components of a binary. For this reason, neutron star white dwarf binaries are the ideal laboratories to test the strength of such dipolar emission. The expected rate of change of the period of a circular orbit due to dipolar emission can be written as [150, 42]: P bdipole = 4π2 G c 3 P b m 1 m 2 m 1 +m 2 (α c1 α c2 ) 2, (26) where G = G in GR, and α ci is the coupling strength of body i to a scalar gravitational field [42]. (Similar expressions can be derived when casting P bdipole in terms of the parameters of specific tensor-scalar theories, such as Brans-Dicke theory [31]. Equation 26, however, tests a more general class of theories.) The best test systems here are of course pulsar white dwarf binaries with short orbital periods, such as PSR B and PSR J , where α c1 α c2 so that a strong limit can be set on the coupling of the pulsar itself. For PSR B , Damour and Esposito-Farèse [42] used the observed limit of P b = (1±4) [14] to derive (α c1 α 0 ) 2 < (1-σ), where α 0 is a reference value of the coupling at infinity. More recently, Arzoumanian [15] has set a 2-σ upper limit of P b /P b < yr 1, or P b < , which yields (α c1 α 0 ) 2 < , somewhat tighter. For PSR J , a Shklovskii correction (see [120] and Section 3.2.2) for the transverse motion of the system and a correction for the (small) predicted amount of quadrupolar radiation must first be subtracted from the observed upper limit to arrive at P b = ( 0.6±1.1) and (α c1 α 0 ) 2 < at 95% confidence [89]. It should be noted that both these limits depend on estimates of the masses of the two stars and do not address the (unknown) equation of state of the neutron stars. Limits may also be derived from double-neutron-star systems (e.g., [148, 152]), although here the difference in the coupling constants is small and so the expected amount of dipolar radiation is also small compared to the quadrupole emission. However, certain alternative gravitational theories in which the quadrupolar radiation predicts a positive orbital period derivative independently of the strength of the dipolar term (e.g., [118, 101, 90]) are ruled out by the observed decreasing orbital period in these systems [142]. Other pulsar white dwarf systems with short orbital periods are mostly found in globular clusters, where the cluster potential will also contribute to the observed P b, or in interacting systems, where tidal effects or magnetic brak- 21

22 ing may affect the orbital evolution (e.g., [13, 58, 102]). However, one system that offers interesting prospects is the recently discovered PSR J [77] which is a young pulsar with white-dwarf companion in a 4.75-hour orbit. In this case, though, the pulsar was formed after the white dwarf, instead of being recycled by the white-dwarf progenitor, and so the orbit is still highly eccentric. This system is therefore expected both to emit sizable amounts of quadrupolar radiation P b could be measurable as soon as 2004 [77] and to be a good test candidate for dipolar emission [60]. 22

23 3.4 Preferred-location Effects: Variation of Newton s Constant Theories that violate the SEP by allowing for preferred locations (in time as well as space) may permit Newton s constant, G, to vary. In general, variations in G are expected to occur on the timescale of the age of the Universe, such that Ġ/G H yr 1, where H 0 is the Hubble constant. Three different pulsar-derived tests can be applied to these predictions, as a SEPviolating time-variable G would be expected to alter the properties of neutron stars and white dwarfs, and to affect binary orbits. 23

24 3.4.1 Spin Tests By affecting the gravitational binding of neutron stars, a non-zero Ġ would reasonably be expected to alter the moment of inertia of the star and hence change its spin on the same timescale [40]. Goldman [62] writes: ( P P ) Ġ = ( ) lni Ġ lng N G, (27) where I is the moment of inertia of the neutron star, about gcm 2, and N is the (conserved) total number of baryons in the star. By assuming that this represents the only contribution to the observed P of PSR B , in a manner reminiscent of the test of ˆα 3 described above, Goldman then derives an upper limit of Ġ/G ( ) yr 1, depending on the stiffness of the neutron star equation of state. Arzoumanian [14] applies similar reasoning to PSR J [105] which has a characteristic age of 27 Gyr once the Shklovskii correction is applied [104]. Again depending on the equation of state, the upper limits from this pulsar are Ġ/G ( ) yr 1 [14]. These values are similar to those obtained by solar-system experiments such as laser ranging to the Viking Lander on Mars (e.g., [116, 67]). Several other millisecond pulsars, once Shklovskii and Galactic-acceleration corrections are taken into account, have similarly large characteristic ages (e.g. [36, 137]). 24

25 3.4.2 Orbital Decay Tests The effects on the orbital period of a binary system of a varying G were first considered by Damour, Gibbons & Taylor [47], who expected: ( ) P b = 2Ġ P b G. (28) Ġ Applying this equation to the limit on the deviation from GR of the P b for PSR , they found a value of Ġ/G = (1.0±2.3) yr 1. Nordtvedt [108] took into account the effects of Ġ on neutron-star structure, realizing that the total mass and angular momentum of the binary system would also change. The corrected expression for P b incorporates the compactness parameter c i and is: ( ) P b P b Ġ [ = 2 ( m1 c 1 +m 2 c 2 m 1 +m 2 ) 3 2 ( m1 c 2 +m 2 c 1 m 1 +m 2 )] Ġ G. (29) (Note that there is a difference of a factor of 2 in Nordtvedt s definition of c i versus the Damour definition used throughout this article.) Nordtvedt s corrected limit for PSR B is therefore slightly weaker. A better limit actually comes from the neutron-star white dwarf system PSR B , with a measured limit on P b of (0.6 ± 1.2) [78]. Using equation 28 this leads to a bound of Ġ/G = ( 9 ± 18) yr 1, which Arzoumanian [14] corrects using equation 29 and an estimate of NS compactness to Ġ/G = ( 1.3±2.7) yr 1. Prospects for improvement come directly from improvements to the limit on P b. Even though PSR J has a tighter limit on P b [89], its shorter orbital period means that the Ġ limit it sets is a factor of 2 weaker than for PSR B

26 3.4.3 Changes in the Chandrasekhar Mass Figure 5: Measured neutron star masses as a function of age. The solid lines show predicted changes in the average neutron star mass corresponding to hypothetical variations in G, where ζ 12 = 10 implies Ġ/G = yr 1. From [135], used by permission. The Chandrasekhar mass, M CH, is the maximum mass possible for a white dwarf supported against gravitational collapse by electron degeneracy pressure [37]. Its value about 1.4M comes directly from Newton s constant: M CH ( hc/g) 3/2 /m 2 N, where h is Planck s constant and m N is the neutron mass. All measured and constrained pulsar masses are consistent with a narrow distribution centred very close to M CH : 1.35 ± 0.04M [136]. Thus it is reasonable to assume that M CH sets the typical neutron star mass, and to check for any changes in the average neutron star mass over the lifetime of the Universe. Thorsett [135] compiles a list of measured and average masses from 5 double-neutron-star binaries with ages ranging from 0.1 Gyr to 12 or 13 Gyr in the case of the globular-cluster binary B C. Using a Bayesian analysis, he finds a limit of Ġ/G = ( 0.6±4.2) yr 1 at the 95% confidence level, the strongest limit on record. Figure 5 illustrates the logic applied. While some cancellation of observed mass changes might be expected from the changes in neutron-star binding energy (cf. Section above), these will be smaller than the M CH changes by a factor of order the compactness and can be neglected. Also, the claimed variations of the fine structure constant of 26

27 order α/α 0.72± [140] over the redshift range 0.5 < z < 3.5 could introduce a maximum derivative of d( hc)/dt/( hc) of about yr 1 and hence cannot influence the Chandrasekhar mass at the same level as the hypothesized changes in G. One of the 5 systems used by Thorsett has since been shown to have a whitedwarf companion [138], but as this is one of the youngest systems, this will not change the results appreciably. The recently discovered PSR J [94], a double-neutron-star binary, has characteristic age only τ c 1Gyr and therefore will also not significantly strengthen the limit. Ongoing searches for pulsars in globular clusters stand the best chance of discovering old double-neutron-star binaries for which the component masses can eventually be measured. 27

28 4 Tests of GR Strong-Field Gravity The best-known uses of pulsars for testing the predictions of gravitational theories are those in which the predicted strong-field effects are compared directly against observations. As essentially point-like objects in strong gravitational fields, neutron stars in binary systems provide extraordinarily clean tests of these predictions. This section will cover the relation between the post-keplerian timing parameters and strong-field effects, and then discuss the three binary systems which yield complementary high-precision tests. 28

29 4.1 Post-Keplerian Timing Parameters In any given theory of gravity, the post-keplerian (PK) parameters can be written as functions of the pulsar and companion star masses and the Keplerian parameters. As the two stellar masses are the only unknowns in the description of the orbit, it follows that measurement of any two PK parameters will yield the two masses, and that measurement of three or more PK parameters will over-determine the problem and allow for self-consistency checks. It is this test for internal consistency among the PK parameters that forms the basis of the classic tests of strong-field gravity. It should be noted that the basic Keplerian orbital parameters are well-measured and can effectively be treated as constants here. In general relativity, the equations describing the PK parameters in terms of the stellar masses are (see [41, 133, 51]): ω = 3 ( ) 5/3 Pb (T M) 2/3 (1 e 2 ) 1, (30) 2π P b = 192π 5 ( Pb 2π γ = e ( Pb ) 1/3 T 2/3 M 4/3 m 2 (m 1 +2m 2 ), (31) 2π ) 5/3 ( e e4 ) (1 e 2 ) 7/2 T 5/3 m 1m 2 M 1/3, (32) r = T m 2, (33) ( ) 2/3 Pb s = x T 1/3 M 2/3 m π (34) where s sini, M = m 1 + m 2 and T GM /c 3 = µs. Other theories of gravity, such as those with one or more scalar parameters in addition to a tensor component, will have somewhat different mass dependencies for these parameters. Some specific examples will be discussed in Section 4.4 below. 29

30 4.2 The Original System: PSR B The prototypical double-neutron-star binary PSR B was discovered at the Arecibo Observatory [5] in 1974 [70]. Over nearly 30 years of timing, its system parameters have shown a remarkable agreement with the predictions of GR, and in 1993 Hulse and Taylor received the Nobel Prize in Physics for its discovery [69, 131]. In the highly eccentric 7.75-hour orbit, the two neutron stars are separated by only 3.3 light-seconds and have velocities up to 400 km/s. This provides an ideal laboratory for investigating strong-field gravity. Parameter Value Orbital period, P b (d) (5) Projected semi-major axis, x (s) (1) Eccentricity, e (4) Longitude of periastron, ω (deg) (4) Epoch of periastron, T 0 (MJD) (3) Advance of periastron, ω (degyr 1 ) (7) Gravitational redshift, γ (ms) 4.294(1) Orbital period derivative, ( P b ) obs (10 12 ) (14) Table 2: Orbital parameters for PSR B in the DD framework, taken from [144]. For PSR B , three PK parameters are well measured: the combined gravitational redshift and time dilation parameter γ, the advance of periastron ω and the derivative of the orbital period, P b. The orbital parameters for this pulsar, measured in the theory-independent DD system, are listed in Table 2 [133, 144]. The task is now to judge the agreement of these parameters with GR. A second useful timing formalism is DDGR [41, 51], which assumes GR to be the true theory of gravity and fits for the total and companion masses in the system, using these quantities to calculate theoretical values of the PK parameters. Thus one can make a direct comparison between the measured DD PK parameters and the values predicted by DDGR using the same data set; the parameters for PSR B agree with their predicted values to better than 0.5% [133]. The classic demonstration of this agreement is shown in Figure 6 [144], in which the observed accumulated shift of periastron is compared to the predicted amount. In order to check the self-consistency of the overdetermined set of equations relating the PK parameters to the neutron star masses, it is helpful to plot the allowed m 1 m 2 curves for each parameter and to verify that they intersect at a common point. Figure 7 displays the ω and γ curves for PSR B ; it 30

31 Figure 6: The parabola indicates the predicted accumulated shift in the time of periastron for PSR B , caused by the decay of the orbit. The measured values of the epoch of periastron are indicated by the data points. From [144], courtesy Joel Weisberg. is clear that the curves do intersect, at the point derived from the DDGR mass predictions. Clearly any theory of gravity which does not pass such a self-consistency test can be ruled out. However, it is possible to construct alternate theories of gravity which, while producing very different curves in the m 1 m 2 plane, do pass the PSR B test and possibly weak-field tests as well [45]. Such theories are best dealt with by combining data from multiple pulsars as well as solar-system experiments (see Section 4.4). A couple of practical points are worth mentioning. The first is that the unknown radial velocity of the binary system relative to the Solar System Barycentre (SSB) will necessarily induce a Doppler shift in the orbital and neutron-star spin periods. This will change the observed stellar masses by a small fraction but will cancel out of the calculations of the PK parameters [41]. The second is that the measured value of the orbital period derivative, P b, is contaminated by several external contributions. Damour and Taylor [50] consider the full range 31

32 Figure 7: Mass-mass diagram for the PSR B system, using the ω and γ parameters listed in Table 2. The uncertainties are smaller than the widths of the lines. The lines intersect at the point given by the masses derived under the DDGR formalism. From [144], courtesy Joel Weisberg. of possible contributions to P b and calculate values for the two most important: the acceleration of the pulsar binary centre of mass relative to the SSB in the Galactic potential, and the Shklovskii v 2 /r effect due to the transverseproper motion of the pulsar (cf. Section 3.2.2). Both of these contributions have been subtracted from the measured value of P b before it is compared with the GR prediction. It is our current knowledge of the Galactic potential and the resulting models of Galactic acceleration (e.g., [88, 10]) which now limit the precision of the test of GR resulting from this system. 32

33 4.3 PSR B and Other Binary Pulsars A second double-neutron-star binary, PSR B , was discovered during a drift-scan survey at Arecibo Observatory in 1990 [153]. This system is quite similar to PSR B : it also has a short (10.1-hour) orbit, though it is slightly wider and less eccentric. PSR B does possess some notable advantages relative to its more famous cousin: it is closer to the Earth and therefore brighter; its pulse period is shorter and its profile narrower, permitting better timing precision; and, most importantly, it is inclined nearly edge-on to the line of sight from the Earth, allowing the measurement of Shapiro delay as well as the 3 PK parameters measurable for PSR B The orbital parameters for PSR B are given in Table 3 [127]. Parameter Value Orbital period, P b (d) (10) Projected semi-major axis, x (s) (2) Eccentricity, e (3) Longitude of periastron, ω (deg) (5) Epoch of periastron, T 0 (MJD) (4) Advance of periastron, ω (degyr 1 ) (9) Gravitational redshift, γ (ms) 2.070(2) Orbital period derivative, ( P b ) obs (10 12 ) 0.137(3) Shape of Shapiro delay, s 0.975(7) Range of Shapiro delay, r (µs) 6.7(1.0) Table 3: Orbital parameters for PSR B in the DD framework, taken from [127]. As for PSR B , a graphical version of the internal consistency test is a helpful way to understand the agreement of the measured PK parameters with the predictions of GR. This is presented in Figure 8. It is obvious that the allowed-mass region derived from the observed value of P b does not in fact intersect those from the other PK parameters. This is a consequence of the proximity of the binary to the Earth, which makes the Shklovskii contribution to the observed P b much larger than for PSR B The magnitude of this contribution depends directly on the poorly known distance to the pulsar. At present, the best independent measurement of the distance comes from the pulsar s dispersion measure and a model of the free electron content of the Galaxy [132], which yield a value of 0.7±0.2kpc. If GR is the correct theory of gravity, then the correction derived from this distance is inadequate, and the true distance can be found by inverting the problem [25, 122]. The most recent value of the distance derived in this manner is 1.02±0.05kpc [127]. (Note that 33

34 Figure 8: Mass-mass diagram for the PSR B system. Labeled curves illustrate 68% confidence ranges of the DD parameters listed in Table 3. The filled circle indicates the component masses according to the DDGR solution. The kinematic correction for assumed distance d = 0.7±0.2kpc has been subtracted from the observed value of P b ; the uncertainty on this kinematic correction dominates the uncertainty of this curve. A slightly larger distance removes the small apparent discrepancy between the observed and predicted values of this parameter. After [127]. the newer NE2001 Galactic model [38] incorporates the GR-derived distance to this pulsar and hence cannot be used in this case.) It is possible that, in the long term, a timing or interferometric parallax may be found for this pulsar; this would alleviate the P b discrepancy. The GR-derived distance is in itself interesting, as it has led to revisions of the predicted merger rate of doubleneutron-star systems visible to gravitational-wave detectors such as LIGO (e.g., [122, 16, 76]) although recent calculations of merger rates determine the most likely merger rates for particular population models and hence are less vulnerable to distance uncertainties in any one system [79]. Despite the problematic correction to P b, the other PK parameters for PSR B are in excellent agreement with each other and with the values predicted from the DDGR-derived masses. An important point is that the three parameters ω, γ and s (shape of Shapiro delay) together yield a test of GR to better than 1%, and that this particular test incorporates only quasi-static 34

35 strong-field effects. This provides a valuable complement to the mixed quasistatic and radiative test derived from PSR B , as it separates the two sectors of the theory. There are three other confirmed double-neutron-star binaries at the time of writing. PSR B C [11, 12] is in the globular cluster M15. While its orbital period derivative has been measured [52], this parameter is affected by acceleration in the cluster potential and the system has not yet proved very useful for tests of GR, though long-term observations may demonstrate otherwise. The two binaries PSRs J [103] and J [94] have such wide orbits that, although ω is measured in each case, prospects for measuring further PK parameters are dim. In several circular pulsar white-dwarf binaries, one or two PK parameters have been measured typically ω or the Shapiro delay parameters but these do not over-constrain the unknown masses. The existing system which provides the most optimistic outlook is again the pulsar whitedwarf binary PSR J [77], for which multiple PK parameters should be measurable within a few years although one may need to consider the possibility of classical contributions to the measured ω from a mass quadrupole of the companion. 35

36 4.4 Combined Binary-Pulsar Tests Figure 9: Portions of the tensor biscalar β β plane permitted by timing observations of PSRs B , B and B up to Values lying above the curve labeled a are incompatible with the measured ω and γ parameters for PSR B The curves labeled b and d give the allowed ranges of β and β for PSRs B and B , respectively, fitting for the two neutron-star masses as well as β and β, using data available up to The vertical lines labeled c represent limits on β from the SEP-violation test using PSR B [49]. The dot at (0,0) corresponds to GR. Reprinted by permission from Nature [134], copyright 1992, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Because of their different orbital parameters and inclinations, the doubleneutron-star systems PSRs B and B provide somewhat different constraints on alternative theories of gravity. Taken together with some of the limits on SEP violation discussed above, and with solar-system experiments, they can be used to disallow certain regions of the parameter space of these alternate theories. This approach was pioneered by Taylor et al. [134], who combined PK-parameter information from PSRs B and B and the Damour and Schäfer result on SEP violation by PSR B [49] to set limits on the parameters β and β of a class of tensor-biscalar theories discussed in reference [45] (Figure 9). In this class of theories, gravity is mediated by two scalar fields as well as the standard tensor, but the theories can satisfy the weak-field solar system tests. Strong-field deviations from GR would be expected for non-zero values of β and β, but the theories approach the limit of GR as the parameters β and β approach zero. 36

37 α LIGO/VIRGO 0.2 NS-BH (no P) LIGO/VIRGO NS-NS 1PN χ 2 = 2 χ 2 = PN β 0 Figure 10: The parameter space in the non-linear α 0, β 0 gravitational theory, for neutron stars described by a polytrope equation of state. The regions below the various curves are allowed by various pulsar timing limits, by solar-system tests ( 1PN ) and by projected LIGO/VIRGO observations of NS-NS and NS- BH inspiral events. The shaded region is allowed by all tests. The plane and limits are symmetric about α 0 = 0. From [44]; used by permission. A different class of theories, allowing a non-linear coupling between matter and a scalar field, was later studied by Damour and Esposito-Farèse[42, 44]. The function coupling the scalar field φ to matter is given by A(φ) = exp( 1 2 β 0φ 2 ), and the theories are described by the parameters β 0 and α 0 = β 0 φ 0, where φ 0 is the value that φ approaches at spatial infinity (cf. Section 3.3). These theories allow significant strong-field effects when β 0 is negative, even if the weak-field limit is small. They are best tested by combining results from PSRs B , B (which contributes little to this test), B (limits on dipolar gravitational radiation) and solar-system experiments (Lunar laser ranging, Shapiro delay measured by Viking [117], and the perihelion advance of Mercury [119]). The allowed parameter space from the combined tests is shown graphically in Figure 10 [44]. Currently, for most neutron-star equations of state, the solar system tests set a limit on α 0 (α 2 0 < 10 3 ) that is a few times more stringent than those set by PSRs B and B , although the pulsar observations do eliminate large negative values of β 0. With the limits from the pulsar observations improving only very slowly with time, it appears that solar-system tests will continue to set the strongest limits on α 0 in this class of theories, unless a pulsar black hole system is discovered. If such a system were found with a 10-M black hole and an orbital period similar to that of PSR B ( 8 hours), the limit on α 0 derived from this system would be about 50 times tighter than that set by current solar-system tests, and 10 times better than is likely to be achieved by the Gravity Probe B experiment [44]. 37

38 4.5 Independent Geometrical Information: PSR J Figure 11: Solid line: predicted value of the Shapiro delay in PSR J as a function of orbital phase, based on the observed inclination angle of 42 ±9. For such low-eccentricity binaries, much of the Shapiro delay can be absorbed into the orbital Roemer delay; what remains is the P b /3 periodicity shown. The points represent the timing residuals for the pulsar, binned in orbital phase, and in clear agreement with the shape predicted from the inclination angle. Reprinted by permission from Nature [139], copyright 2001, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. A different and complementary test of GR has recently been permitted by the millisecond pulsar PSR J [139]. At a distance of only 140pc, it is the closest millisecond pulsar to the Earth [74], and is also extremely bright, allowing root-mean-square timing residuals of 35 ns with the 64-m Parkes [2] telescope, comparable to or better than the best millisecond pulsars observed with current instruments at the 300-m Arecibo telescope [5]. The proximity of this system means that the orbital motion of the Earth changes the apparent inclination angle i of the pulsar orbit on the sky, an effect known as the annual-orbital parallax [81]. This results in a periodic change of the projected semi-major axis x of the pulsar s orbit, written as: [ x(t) = x 0 1+ coti ] d r (t) Ω, (35) where r (t) is the time-dependent vector from the centre of the Earth to the 38

39 SSB, and Ω is a vector on the plane of the sky perpendicular to the line of nodes. A second contribution to the observed i and hence x comes from the pulsar system s transverse motion in the plane of the sky [82]: ẋ PM = x cotiµ Ω, (36) where µ is the proper motion vector. By including both these effects in the model of the pulse arrival times, both the inclination angle i and the longitude of the ascending node Ω can be determined [139]. As sini is equivalent to the shape of the Shapiro delay in GR (PK parameter s), the effect of the Shapiro delay on the timing residuals can then easily be computed for a rangeof possible companion masses (equivalent to the PK parameter r in GR). The variations in the timing residualsare well explained by acompanion massof 0.236±0.017M (Figure 11). The measured value of ω, together with i, also provides an estimate of the companion mass, 0.23±0.14M, which is consistent with the Shapirodelay value. While this result does not include a true self-consistency check in the manner of the double-neutron-star tests, it is nevertheless important, as it represents the only case in which an independent, purely geometric determination of the inclination angle of a binary orbit predicts the shape of the Shapiro delay. It can thus be considered to provide an independent test of the predictions of GR. 39

40 4.6 Spin-Orbit Coupling and Geodetic Precession Figure 12: Changes in the observed pulse profile of PSR B throughout the 1980s, due to a changing line-of-sight cut through the emission region of the pulsar. Taken from reference [133]; used by permission. A complete discussion of GR effects in pulsar observations must mention geodetic precession, though these results are somewhat qualitative and do not (yet) provide a model-free test of GR. In standard evolutionary scenarios for double-neutron-star binaries (e.g., [29, 111]), both stellar spins are expected to be aligned with the orbital angular momentum just before the second supernova explosion. After this event, however, the observed pulsar s spin is likely to be misaligned with the orbital angular momentum, by an angle of the order of 20 [21]. A similar misalignment may be expected when the observed pulsar is the second-formed degenerate object, as in PSR J As a result, both vectors will precess about the total angular momentum of the system (in practice the total angular momentum is completely dominated by the orbital angular momentum). The evolution of the pulsar spin axis S 1 can be written as [48, 22]: ds 1 dt = Ω spin 1 S 1, (37) where the vector Ω spin 1 is aligned with the orbital angular momentum. Its 40

41 Figure 13: Top: change in peak separation of the relativistic double-neutronstar binary PSR B , as observed with the Arecibo (solid points, [141]) and Effelsberg (open circles, [85]) telescopes. Bottom: projected disappearance of PSR B in approximately Taken from reference [85]; used by permission. magnitude is given by: Ω spin 1 = 1 2 ( ) 5/3 Pb m 2 (4m 1 +3m 2 ) 2π (1 e 2 )(m 1 +m 2 ) 4/3T2/3, (38) where T GM /c 3 = µs, as in Section 4.1. This predicted rate of precession is small; the three systems with the highest Ω spin 1 values are: PSRJ at1.35 yr 1, PSRB at1.21 yr 1 andpsrb at 0.52 yr 1. The primary manifestation of this precession is expected to be a slow change in the shape of the pulse profile, as different regions of the pulse emission beam move into the observable region. Evidence for long-term profile shape changes is in fact seen in PSRs B and B For PSR B , profile shape changes were first reported 41

42 Figure 14: Hourglass-shaped beam for PSR B derived from the symmetric-component analysis of [143]. Taken from reference [143]; used by permission. in the 1980s [141], with a clear change in the relative heights of the two profile peaks over several years (Figure 12). No similar changes were found in the polarization of the pulsar [39]. Interestingly, although a simple picture of a cone-shaped beam might lead to an expectation of a change in the separation of the peaks with time, no evidence for this was seen until the late 1990s, at the Effelsberg 100-m telescope [85], by which point the two peaks had begun to move closer together at a rather fast rate. Kramer [85] used this changing peak separation, along with the predicted precession rate and a simple conal model of the pulse beam, to estimate a spin-orbit misalignment angle of about 22 and to predict that the pulsar will disappear from view in about 2025 (see Figure 13), in good agreement with an earlier prediction by Istomin [71] made before the peak separation began to change. Recent results from Arecibo [143] confirm the gist of Kramer s results, with a misalignment angle of about 21. Both sets of authors find there are four degenerate solutions that can fit the profile separation data; two can be discarded as they predict an unreasonably large misalignment angle of = 158 [21], and a third is eliminated because it predicts the wrong direction of the position angle swing under the RotatingVectorModel [112]. The main areaofdispute is the actualshapeofthe emission region; while Weisberg and Taylor find an hourglass-shaped beam (see Figure 14), Kramer maintains that a nearly circular cone plus an offset core is adequate (see Figure 15). In any event, it is clear that the interpretation of the 42

43 Figure 15: Alternate proposed beam shape for PSR B , consisting of a symmetric cone plus an offset core. The red lines indicate an example cut through the emission region, as well as the predicted pulse peak ratio and separation as functions of time. After [86], courtesy Michael Kramer. profile changes requires some kind of model of the beam shape. Kramer [86, 87] lets the rate of precession vary as another free parameter in the pulse-shape fit, and finds a value of 1.2 ±0.2. This is consistent with the GR prediction but still depends on the beam-shape model and is therefore not a true test of the precession rate. PSR B , despite the disadvantages of a more recent discovery and a much longer precession period, also provides clear evidence of long-term profile shape changes. These were first noticed at 1400 MHz by Arzoumanian [14, 17] and have become more obvious at this frequency and at 430MHz in the postupgrade period at Arecibo [126]. The principal effect is a change in the lowlevel emission near to the main pulse (Figure 16), though related changes in polarization are now also seen. As this pulsar shows polarized emission through most of its pulse period, it should be possible to form a better picture of the overall geometry than for PSR B ; this may make it easier to derive an accurate model of the pulse beam shape. As for other tests of GR, the pulsar white-dwarf binary PSR J promises interesting results. As noted by the discoverers [77], the region of sky containing this pulsar had been observed at the same frequency in an earlier survey [75], but the pulsar was not seen, even though it is now very strong. It is possible that interference corrupted that original survey pointing, or that a software error prevented its detection, but it is also plausible that the observed pulsar beam is evolving so rapidly that the visible beam precessed into view 43